In a new interesting policy brief of the Institute for Security and Development Policy, Hannah Kim points out the damage to gender relations in South Korea.

Among the various structural drivers, male-only conscription in South Korea remains one of the most enduring and polarizing institutions affecting young men. (…) The symbolic weight of conscription has made it a flashpoint in debates over gender equality, as men are seen as bearing mandatory civic obligations while women remain largely exempt. This asymmetry fuels resentment, especially when combined with gender equality policies perceived as benefiting women. Some young men interpret these policies as advantages secured without equivalent sacrifice or recognition. Additionally, political actors and online communities have amplified these grievances, frequently invoking conscription as a benchmark of fairness and civic duty. Backlash against proposals to extend conscription to women further reveals how deeply military service is embedded in narratives of gendered justice and perceived equity.

On the other hand, the comparative insight from Sweden in the brief is of dubious quality. Yes, the situation is not as dire as in South Korea, but men still overwhelmingly bear the brunt of the policy despite its on-paper equality. They suffer significant career consequences, resulting in income losses of more thatn 50 thousand dollar (conscription does not act as effective career development). Female conscripts, meanwhile, face significant discrimination. More details will be available in our forthcoming report on conscription in the Nordics.